I'm not sure on what side of which ocean you are, but here in Europe things like this are quite common as well. Roads, ports, railways, canals, airports, business parks, and a bit farther away education and research and development, are often paid for or subsidised by governments. Governments invest in infrastructure in the hopes of attracting companies who will then boost the local economy. A lot of goods that are shipped to Europe travel through The Netherlands for example, and the Dutch government spends a lot of money (mainly from natural gas production) on keeping the infrastructure good enough to compete with neighbouring countries. The European Structural Funds are also an example of this.

If anything is interesting in the US then it's that they've been neglecting their infrastructure for decades. Much of that infrastructure is privately owned, and the quality at which a piece of infrastructure is optimally profitable is probably not the same as the quality at which it optimally contributes to the local economy (hence bad roads and broken Armadillo Aerospace rockets). Corporations too have not been investing enough in innovative production techniques (think of the US car manufacturers having been overtaken by Asian ones, they finally fell over in the current crisis, but the problem behind that has been there for decades).

Or to get back to spaceflight, all current major launch providers (with the exception of SpaceX) are heavily government subsidised. I don't see how the state of Florida putting a bit of money into their spaceport should be typically American or a bad thing...

_________________Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhereWhat is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphereMachinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus

I live a bit to the East of you. Poland to be precise. While the government (either central or local) does in fact invest in infrastructure (always too little it seems), I've never actually heard of government investing directly into a privately funded company with the intent to bring more jobs to the area (and this, unless I misunderstood the article, is what is happening in Florida). If anything it's the UE, that is willing to invest into private entrepreneurship, and it is quite awesome! I agree! But it's not the local government, who thinks about that, but the company owners themselves need to apply for these funds.

_________________Say, can you feel the thunder in the air? Just like the moment ’fore it hits – then it’s everywhereWhat is this spell we’re under, do you care? The might to rise above it is now within your sphereMachinae Supremacy – Sid Icarus

Over the last several months, SpaceX has been hard at work preparing for our next flight — a mission designed to demonstrate that a privately-developed space transportation system can deliver cargo to and from the International Space Station (ISS). NASA has given us a Nov. 30, 2011 launch date, which should be followed nine days later by Dragon berthing at the ISS.

[...] I've never actually heard of government investing directly into a privately funded company with the intent to bring more jobs to the area (and this, unless I misunderstood the article, is what is happening in Florida). If anything it's the UE, that is willing to invest into private entrepreneurship, and it is quite awesome!

If I'm not misstaken, the facility is still on government-owned land. If you want to see something similar done elsewhere, take a look at Norway.<br><br>By the way - it's still funny to look at from "the other side of the ocean"... but more related to the politics and the political system "over there".

After the successful launch of the first SpaceX cargo demonstration flight (C1) in December 2010, SpaceX approached NASA with a plan to accelerate its cargo transportation capability by attempting to achieve the third cargo demonstration flight (C3) mission objectives on the second demonstration (C2) flight. C2 mission objectives include demonstrating ISS/Dragon communications and flight navigation, control, and contingency operations near ISS. C3 mission objectives include demonstrating ISS proximity operations, berthing with the ISS, cargo transfer, and return to Earth. Operationally, the plan would be for SpaceX to successfully complete all the C2 mission objectives and then be given approval to rendezvous and berth with the ISS during the same flight. According to Alan Lindenmoyer, Commercial Crew and Cargo Program Manager, “Combining C2 and C3 could accelerate cargo services to station by about two months.” NASA will not relax or eliminate any technical or safety requirements; rather, the combination will allow SpaceX the opportunity to meet all the C2 and C3 milestone objectives in a single flight.

At this point, NASA has not identified anything that would preclude combining the C2 and C3 mission objectives and is proceeding with mission planning. However, SpaceX wants to deploy two commercial satellites (Orbcomm) from the F9 second stage. The addition of Orbcomm's payloads to the combined mission is under review. If the risks associated with the secondary payloads are determined to be acceptable, NASA will give formal approval to the combined mission execution.

The C2 Falcon 9 launch vehicle is currently at Pad 40, Cape Canaveral, and is undergoing final preparation for the mission. The integrated Dragon spacecraft is preparing for electromagnetic compatibility and thermal vacuum testing to verify the spacecraft's compatibility with ISS environments. The Dragon spacecraft is planned to be shipped from SpaceX’s Hawthorne facility to Cape Canaveral in September.

[...] SpaceX remains focused on being able to launch the freighter to the International Space Station as planned in late November despite the scheduling problems caused by the recent loss of a Russian Progress vehicle. That failure has caused a delay in crew rotation, meaning that a crew trained to grapple and berth the Dragon won’t be on station until late December.